More and more people are becoming aware that there is a concerted effort by an increasing number of governments to remove cash as a means of transaction and create Cashless Digital Economies.
“When people talk about a cashless society and they’re not trying to sugar coat it, and they’re not government apologists, they talk about convenience.
The problem with the convenience argument is as Ben Franklin said, “Those who give up liberty for convenience, deserve neither liberty nor convenience.”
This enhanced convenience is a dual edged sword, since a cashless society may be more convenient, but it means a lack of freedom.”(1)
“Despite the incredible penetration of credit and debit card transactions into economic aggregate, and the boom in internet shopping, few will comfortably admit that a cashless society is nearly upon us.
Over the years, futurists and commentators alike seemed to agree that a cashless society will be a slow creep, and would automatically phase itself in simply by virtue of the sheer volume of electronic transactions that gradually make cash less available and more costly to redeem, or exchange. This is still true for the most part. What few counted on, however, was how the final push would take place, and why. Some will be surprised by these new emerging mechanisms, and the political and sinister implications they ultimately lead to.
It has long been the dream of collectivists and technocratic elites to eliminate the semi-unregulated cash economy and black markets in order to maximize taxation and to fully control markets. If the cashless society is ushered in, they will have near complete control over the lives of individual people.
The financial collapse which began in 2007-2008 was merely the opening gambit of the elite criminal class, a mere warm-up for things to come. With the next collapse we may see a centrally controlled global digital currency gaining its final foothold. The cashless society is already here. The question now is how far will society allow it to penetrate and completely control each and every aspect of their day to day lives.”(2)
“The central banks are planning drastic restrictions on cash itself. They see moving to electronic money will first eliminate the underground economy, but secondly, they believe it will even prevent a banking crisis. This idea of eliminating cash was first floated as the normal trial balloon to see how the people take it. It was first launched by Kenneth Rogoff of Harvard University and Willem Buiter, the chief economist at Citigroup. Their claims have been widely hailed and their papers are now the foundation for the new age of Economic Totalitarianism that confronts us. They sit in their lofty offices but do not have real world practical experience beyond theory.
Considerations of their arguments have shown how governments can seize all economic power and destroy cash in the process, eliminating all rights. Physical paper money provides the check against negative interest rates, for if they become too great, people will simply withdraw their funds and hoard cash. Furthermore, paper currency allows for bank runs. Eliminate paper currency and what you end up with is the elimination of the ability to demand to withdraw funds from a bank.
Paper currency is indeed the check against negative interest rates. We need only look to Switzerland to prove that theory. Any attempt to impose say a 5% negative interest rates (tax) would lead to an unimaginably massive flight into cash. This was already demonstrated recently by the example of Swiss pension funds, which withdrew their money from the bank in a big way and now store it in vaults in cash in order to escape the financial repression. People will act in their own self-interest and negative interest rates are likely to reduce the sales of government bonds and set off a bank run as long as paper money exists.
The only way to prevent such a global bank run would be the total prohibition of paper money.
The Financial Times argued last year that central banks would be the real winners from a cashless society:
Central bankers, after all, have had an explicit interest in introducing e-money from the moment the global financial crisis began…
The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly. A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it transfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money.
If all money becomes digital, it would be much easier for the government to manipulate our accounts.
Indeed, numerous high-level NSA whistle-blowers say that NSA spying is about crushing dissent and blackmailing opponents … not stopping terrorism.
This may sound over-the-top … but remember, the government sometimes labels its critics as “terrorists“. If the government claims the power to indefinitely detain – or even assassinate – American citizens at the whim of the executive, don’t you think that government people would be willing to shut down, or withdraw a stiff “penalty” from a dissenter’s bank account?
If society becomes cashless, dissenters can’t hide cash. All of their financial holdings would be vulnerable to an attack by the government.
This would be the ultimate form of control. Because – without access to money – people couldn’t resist, couldn’t hide and couldn’t escape.”(3)
How Did We Get Here?
“During the past few years there have been increasing stories discussing the cashless society as something like a futuristic concept that arose out of nowhere. The western world has been heading in a cashless direction for decades. It’s only recently that people are starting to notice that the transition to a totally cashless society is nearly complete.
A cashless society has its roots in changing laws, cultures and technology that also have the effect of influencing each other.
Since cash is pocketed freedom, government actions and central planning strive to eliminate that freedom via reducing the amount of cash its citizens have, its value and limiting and eventually eliminating the use of cash. Governments also want control on how cash is spent and wish to know WHAT people are spending money on to fight crime and income tax evasion.
Here are some of the major United States government actions that have had the effect of removing cash from its citizens’ hands:
Creation of The Internal Revenue Service and the Income Tax – 1913
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was founded in 1913 by the passage of the 16th Amendment. The Federal Income Tax was not intended to eliminate cash, but it did have the impact of reducing a portion of income over which one had direct control. The introduction of the income tax meant that citizens (now “taxpayers”) had to set money aside to pay the Federal Government who would decide how that money would be spent, or in many cases wasted.
Creation of The Federal Reserve System – 1913
The Federal Reserve was established by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. The Act created a nation wide Federal Reserve banking system that was intended to manage the nation’s money supply and act as a bank of last resort in the event of bank failures. Since 1913, the United States dollar has lost 98% of its value. For the past 100 years we have been led to believe that inflation, like taxes and death are inevitable.
Recently, the Federal Reserve (the Fed) and other central banks have also tried to convince the public that inflation is desirable as they set “inflation target rates”. Inflation operates as a stealth tax and transfers (by policy!) even more of its citizen’s wealth to the government.
The Fed conducts “monetary policy” in which it injects itself into the markets by setting interest rates and manipulating the money supply. The Federal Reserves creates dollars, reallocates and distributes them where it sees fit.
The Fed sets the price of money by setting interest rates. The setting of interest rates removes from the market place the price discovery mechanism of where interest rates should be. The cost of money impacts the economic decisions that market participants make. When the Fed sets interest rates artificially low, money is cheap and people will be encouraged to spend it, perhaps recklessly and discouraged from saving it. This has the effect of incentivizing people to give up their cash and to spend it instead.
By creating and directing flows of capital, the Fed removes individual and corporate power to decide how their money is spent and by intentionally creating inflation, the Fed removes some of the value of individuals’ and corporations’ money that is not already taxed by the IRS.
President Roosevelt’s Gold Confiscation Executive Order 6102 -1933
In 1933, with the stroke of a pen, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt removed gold coins that had been freely circulating as legal tender in the United States, by requiring U.S. citizens to turn their gold coins (and other forms of gold) in to the U.S. government.
Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the Hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States”, removed, by law, the ultimate form of money from U.S. citizens’ hands – gold.
The effect of the order, in conjunction with the statute under which it was issued, was to criminalize the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.
The stated reason for the order was that hard times had caused “hoarding” of gold, stalling economic growth and making the depression worse.
The New York Times, on April 6, 1933, p. 16, wrote under the headline “Hoarding of Gold”, “The Executive Order issued by the President yesterday amplifies and particularizes his earlier warnings against hoarding. On March 6, taking advantage of a wartime statute that had not been repealed, he issued Presidential Proclamation 2039 that forbade the hoarding ‘of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency,’ under penalty of $10,000 and/or up to five to ten years imprisonment.”
The main rationale behind the order was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve which prevented it from increasing the money supply during the depression; the Federal Reserve Act (1913) required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit (in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes) that could be backed by the gold in its possession (see Great Depression). If gold could not be legally owned, then it could not be legally redeemed. If it could not be legally redeemed, then it could not constrain the central bank.
Executive Order 6102 required all persons to deliver on or before May 1, 1933, all but a small amount of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by them to the Federal Reserve, in exchange for $20.67 (consumer price index, adjusted value of $382 today) per troy ounce. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the recently passed Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000 (equivalent to $185013 today) or up to ten years in prison, or both.
Order 6102 specifically exempted “customary use in industry, profession or art”—a provision that covered artists, jewelers, dentists, and sign makers among others. The order further permitted any person to own up to $100 in gold coins (a face value equivalent to 5 troy ounces (160 g) of gold valued at about $6,339 in 2016). The same paragraph also exempted “gold coins having recognized special value to collectors of rare and unusual coins.” This protected recognized gold coin collections from legal seizure and likely melting.
The price of gold from the Treasury for international transactions was thereafter raised to $35 an ounce ($648 today). The resulting profit that the government realized funded the Exchange Stabilization Fund established by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934.
Passage of the Social Security Act – 1935
In 1935, Congress passed the Social Security Act which authorized amounts to be withheld directly from payroll checks in order to fund an old age retirement program. The Social Security tax removed cash directly off the top of employees’ wages and required the employer to contribute an amount equal to the amount deducted from the employees’ salary. The money that goes automatically in the form of social security withholdings represents cash that is no longer under the workers’ control, but rather under government control.
Automatic Payroll Deduction – 1943
The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, required employers to withhold federal income taxes from its employees’ paychecks and submit them directly to the Federal Government on the employees’ behalf. Prior to this, from 1913 employees would have to calculate and send their portion of income tax quarterly to the Federal government.
The Passage of The Medicare Amendment to the Social Security Act – 1965
In 1965 Congress passed the Medicare Amendment to the Social Security Act. In 1966, automatic payroll withholdings to pay for Medicare began. Medicare deductions meant U.S. employees had three automatic Federal withholdings made from their wages that remain to this day – social security, income tax and Medicare.
Removal of Silver Coins and Silver Certificates from Circulation 1963-68
Good-Bye Silver Certificates
In his Annual Economic Report to the Congress on January 21, 1963, John F. Kennedy said he wished to “authorize the Federal Reserve System to issue notes in denominations of $1, so as to make possible the gradual withdrawal of silver certificates from circulation.” In conjunction with John F. Kennedy’s plan to demonitize silver, the U.S. Congress passed the Act of June 4, 1963, which provided, among other things, the blue print to remove U.S. Silver Certificates from circulation.
Pursuant to the Act of June 4, 1963 U.S. Treasury C. Douglas Dillon announced in March 1964 the end of redemption of silver certificates to coincide with the cessation of mintage of silver coinage at the end of that year. The Act allowed the exchange of silver certificates for silver bullion until June 24, 1968.
Good Bye Silver Coinage
Prior to 1965 the United States minted dimes, quarters, half dollars and dollar coins of 90% silver and 10% copper. Silver coins were so prevalent as a form of everyday currency in the United States that the US. Mint used 550 million ounces of silver to produce 1964 dated dimes quarters and half dollars.
Pursuant to the Coinage Act of 1965 U.S. coins would no longer be made of 90% silver. (Kennedy Half Dollars would be minted of 40% silver from 1965-1970) From 1965 on, U.S. coins would be minted from a mixture of copper and nickel.
Removal of U.S. Bills Larger than $100 From Circulation – 1969
On July 14, 1969, Secretary of the Treasury, David M Kennedy and the Fed announced that they would immediately stop distributing currency in denominations higher than $100. At the time of the announcement, $500 (featuring President McKinley), $1,000 (featuring President Cleveland), $5,000 (featuring President Madison) and $10,000 (featuring Senator Salmon Chase) bills were in circulation.
The Fed’s stated reason for their removal from circulation was that “Their main purpose was for bank transfer payments. With the arrival of more secure transfer technologies, however, they were no longer needed for that purpose.”
In 1969 it was deemed that a $100 bill was a valid denomination for ordinary circulation. On February 16, 2016, however, former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers penned an editorial in which he advocated “It’s Time to Kill the $100 Bill . Mr. Summer’s editorial advocating killing the $100 bill was based on contemporaneous discussions in the European Union to eliminate the €500 bill. Mr. Summers reasoned that notes with large denominations are “highly irresponsible and mostly… a boon to corruption and crime.”
The removal of larger denominated bills, also makes it inconvenient for law abiding people to hold large sums of money in cash.
Bank Secrecy Act – 1970
In 1970 Congress passed the Bank Secrecy Act that required banks to file reports of transactions with its customers of more than $10,000 in a single day and to file suspicious activity reports regarding potential money laundering, tax evasion or other suspected criminal activity. This means that perfectly legal transactions over $10,000 would be reported as a matter of course by banks and legal transactions that bank, in their discretion believe might involve money laundering or tax evasion or criminal activity also get reported.
Civil Forfeiture – Seize First, Ask Questions Later
Your bank account can be raided by government authorities, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without notice or reason given. If the IRS believes your bank account deposit and/or withdrawals activity is suspicious and/or may involve a pattern designed to avoid reporting requirements, they may seize your account. According to the Institute of Justice, the IRS seized more than $242 million from over 2,500 accounts for illegally structuring deposits or withdrawals. One third of these cases resulted in no criminal charges filed and involved deposits and withdrawals under $10,000.
President Nixon’s Breach of the Bretton Woods Gold Standard Agreements – 1971
In 1944, as World War II drew to a close, delegates from forty-four countries met at the Mount Washington Hotel in Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to hash out a new international monetary system. The United States was the dominant military and economic power at the time and held most of the world’s gold, so the U.S. dollar was selected to be the world’s reserve currency. According to the Bretton Woods Agreements the dollar could be redeemed by other countries’ central banks for gold from the United States Treasury upon request. This “gold standard” coupled with the United States’ preeminent military and economic position, gave the world confidence that the dollar was as good as gold.
On August 15, 1971, President Richard Nixon in a nationally televised speech unilaterally and without warning ripped up the Bretton Woods agreement. In his address, Mr. Nixon announced that he was “temporarily” suspending the convertibility of the dollar into gold.
Mr. Nixon also attempted to dispel the “bugaboo” that taking the U.S. dollar off the gold standard would result in a devalued dollar by assuring the nation that “your dollar will buy just as much tomorrow as it does today.” That may have been technically correct, but it was not true that a dollar on August 15,1971 would buy as much as it did on that day as it would on August 15, 1973 or August 8, 1974, the day Nixon resigned, or on August 15, 1979, as inflation raged throughout the 1970’s, depriving American consumers of a substantial portion of their dollar’s purchasing power.
The USA Patriot Act – 2001
The USA Patriot Act 0f 2001, expanded the reporting requirements of transactions over $10,000 to merchants selling consumer durables (eg. cars), collectibles (e.g. art, rugs, antiques, metals, gems, stamps or coins), or travel or entertainment services. The ostensible reason for the Act was to fight terrorism, but the Act applies to all U.S. citizens irrespective of the legality or intent of their transactions.
Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) 2010
Congress enacted FATCA in 2010 to target U.S. taxpayers who might be using foreign accounts to avoid payment of taxes. FATCA requires foreign financial institutions and U.S citizens to report financial information to the IRS relating to accounts held by U.S. taxpayers overseas. Penalties for non-compliance include steep fines and/or loss of the account(s) No criminal intent is required to impose penalties or to confiscate assets under FACTA; only a failure to disclose assets is required.
Affordable Health Care Act – 2010
The Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA) marked the first time the U.S. Government could require its citizens to purchase a product or service. Under the AHCA, U.S. citizens must purchase a qualifying heath plan or pay a tax penalty if they do not comply.
In his 2014 State of the Union Address, President Obama announced the concept of MyRA. Recognizing that social security was not longer sufficient for a comfortable retirement, the President outlined his plans to give US citizens the option to purchase U.S. Treasury Bonds through automatic withholdings from their paychecks. The MyRA program went live in late 2015 and for those citizens participating, they will have four automatic Federal withholdings from their paychecks – Social Security, Federal income tax, Medicare and MyRa.
The AHCA precedent may one day pave the way to make MyRA contributions mandatory, thus requiring U.S. citizens to fund the U.S. deficit by purchasing U.S. Treasury Bonds and depriving U.S. citizens of more cash under their control.
Imposition of Negative Interest Rates -200?
As early as 2010, the Fed has been discussing the introduction of negative interest rates. Negative interest rates effectively make if economically unfeasible to hold cash as the holder must pay the bank to keep it for him. Under a negative interest rate regime, people have no incentive to save their money in banks so they can either spend it or put it in other potentially appreciating assets like stocks or bonds. Persons wishing not to pay the bank for the privilege of having their cash stored there, may horde cash in other places.
Central planners realizing this potential, know that for a negative interest rate regime to have any chance of succeeding, physical cash must be abolished.
Each of the foregoing governmental actions have had the effect of attacking cash outright or forcibly redirecting it. Going cashless is not all about government, there are cultural and technological reasons pushing people towards a cashless society.”(4)
The Downsides of a Cashless Society
Enhanced Convenience Also Means Loss of Control
Cashless Means Automatic
“If money is easy to spend, it is also easy to take. Convenience can easily become tyranny. Automatic payments that come directly from your bank account illustrate the point.
Risk of Confiscation
The convenience of digital money that allows you to spend your money more easily, also makes it easier for banks, governments and thieves to take it.
In 2013, bank depositors in Cyprus experienced a “bail-in”. The failing banks in Cyprus were partially bailed out by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund on the condition that some depositors would also have to forfeit some of the money owed to them. This was done unilaterally – the depositors simply lost a portion of their money in the bank. There was no meeting of creditors (the depositors) with the bank, just a swift removal of a portion of the depositors’ money.
Bail-in legislation is now in existence in many countries and the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Stanley Fisher noted last year that the United States is also preparing proposals to allow for “bailinable debt” .
The message to depositors is clear- when you put money in a bank you are a creditor of the bank and if it goes bust you are at the bottom of the list of creditors. Your money will be seized as part of any approved plan, perhaps even before the broke bank files for bankruptcy.
Think your money is safe in the bank? Think again.
Civil Forfeiture – Seize First, Ask Questions Later
Your bank account can be raided by government authorities, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) without notice or reason given. If the IRS believes your bank account deposit and/or withdrawals activity is suspicious and/or may involve a pattern designed to avoid reporting requirements, they may seize your account. According to the Institute of Justice, the IRS seized more than $242 million from over 2,500 accounts for illegally structuring deposits or withdrawals. One third of these cases resulted in no criminal charges filed and involved deposits and withdrawals under $10,000.
Done nothing wrong, nothing to worry about? Think again.
Risk Of Theft
Theft is Easier
Proponents of the cashless society actually tout that theft is more difficult. Björn Ulvaeus of Abba claims that he became interested in eliminating cash after his son’s house was burgled. Eliminate cash, Mr. Ulvaeus reasons and you eliminate theft.
Bill Gates echoes Mr. Ulvaeus statements saying “Cash is a bit of a trap- it can be stolen…”
Perhaps it’s excusable for a pop star to not recognize that theft of digital money is far easier than a burglary involving cash, but for Bill Gates, the former CEO of the world’s largest software company to make the claim that a downside of cash is that it “can be stolen” is irresponsible. (especially since his Microsoft Windows product is notorious for security breaches).
The number of stories of bank, bank account and bitcoin digital wallets being hacked and drained are legion.
Think digital money is safer than cash and can’t be stolen? Think again.
Crime is Easier
Some actually believe that in a cashless society that crime will go down and drug dealers will go out of business.
Mr. Ulvaeus further reasoned “Without cash, we would avoid the bicycle thief and the television thief, and who would buy the copper that is stolen, if they could not sell it for cash?”
Bicycles, televisions, computers and cell phones will continue to be stolen in a cashless society because they have value in and of themselves and will be stolen for use or stolen to sell in exchange for other forms of “money” (eg. crypto-currencies such as bitcoin, private or foreign currencies) or traded for other items of value.
Drug dealers won’t go out of business – they will just take payment for their wares in other national or crypto-currencies, personal services or other items of value (stolen or otherwise).
In a cashless society, theft will occur on line and in far larger amounts than cash heists. An online thief never has to confront his victim, commit violence, crack a safe, get past an alarm system, dog or armed guards and carry away his loot. Rather, in a cashless society, the cyber thief merely has to hack the systems where the ‘money” is. The online heist involves no risk of death or threat to the thief’s personal safety and can be done from anywhere in the world.
Think crime will go down if we go cashless? Think again.
Risk of System Failure
Without cash, the value of currency would have no independent value outside a functioning banking system to which you have access. Your money wouldn’t ‘work’ without a functioning banking system. If the banking system is down due to a power outage, solar flare, financial crisis, Internet failure, hack or network crash, your money is unavailable and potentially lost. If back up files are lost how do you prove you had $15,000 in your account?
Think a digital banking system is stable and secure? Think again.
Risk of Being Exiled From the System
Even if the digital banking system was 100% fool proof, you may end up being shut out of the system for wrong doing (actual or alleged), bad credit or failure to pay banking fees. Or you may be the victim of identity theft and as a “precaution” your account may be closed. Without access to the banking system, how will you pay your bills and buy items you need?
Think a cashless system is more convenient? Think again.
Risk of Not Having Access to the System
You may lack the means to have access to a computer, smart phone or Internet connection. Or your computer or smart phone may get damaged or stolen (would never happen in a cashless society, right?) and you have no back up. Without a way to access the banking system what would you use to buy food?
Think it can’t happen to you? Think again.
Risk of Creating a Vast Powerful Criminal Underground Economy
Cash as Contraband
Banning items or substances often increases their allure. Passing laws prohibiting wide spread behavior often creates a criminal underclass of people willing to break those laws. Millions routinely violated the 18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution by selling, buying and consuming alcoholic beverages in the 1920’s.
Today millions break drug and gun laws to procure narcotics and firearms.
Other than the most ardent bitcoin proponents or those with a real need to use a currency outside the banking system, relatively very few today would risk jail time or fines to use bitcoin if it were made illegal. Ban cash, however, and the number of people willing to break the law and use a banned currency would explode exponentially. Ban cash and usually law abiding citizens may break the law and continue to use the cash that the authorities were unable to confiscate.
Cash Sniffing Dogs?
An unintended consequence of government’s desire to collect more taxes and to track transactions, is that it will drive people out of the system. People whose bank accounts have been seized or have been otherwise denied access to the banking system will revert to other means of exchange.
Currently, few would risk jail time or fines to use cash, BUT for those exiled from the banking system (or those fed up with excessive banking fees-see below) it may be their only alternative. Given the vast amount of dollars in currency form (bills and coin) in circulation today in the U.S. and overseas, these dollars and other currencies could be used as forms of payment for those outside the cashless banking system.
To combat the lawless use of cash, the government would have to engage in an actual “War on Cash” and treat cash as contraband, with an increase in training dogs to sniff out cash to be confiscated or further investments in machines to find hidden cash. In a mandated cashless society, a robust black market in alternative currencies and goods and services will certainly evolve.
As a result, the government may ultimately collect fewer taxes and spend more money combating illegal currencies and transactions.
Think the government will collect more taxes in a cashless society? Think again.
Raises The Cost of Doing Business
If there is no cash, even though the cost of producing currency is near nil, a monopoly can charge whatever it wants to use digital cash in the form of holding your money and transaction fees. In a cashless society, banks most likely, not the U.S. Treasury will be the primary creators of digital currency. For this service, they will continue to charge credit card, deposit and late fees.
For consumers and merchants this means that they will pay currency issuing banks a portion of every transaction.
Think going cashless will reduce transaction costs? Think again.
Results in a Loss of Freedom
Bake That Cake, Pay That Raise, Buy That Insurance.
We have witnessed outcome based politics erode personal freedom in recent years. From forced labor (bakery required to bake a cake), to forced pay raises to labor (minimum wage laws) to forced purchases (health insurance), government has issued edicts requiring the foregoing.
While going cashless may be convenient when you choose to buy something, but if a purchase is thrust officiously upon you by government order, your money can be removed from your account to pay for it, conveniently of course. This type of forced convenience results in a removal of freedom of choice of how you may wish to spend your money.
Loss of Property Rights
Ultimately, property rights and personal rights are the same thing – Calvin Coolidge
Property rights are the foundation of a free society. If you don’t have control, ready access or the ability to spend your money when and as you please, you do not really own it. Rather, you are a co-owner with the currency issuer (the bank) who has veto rights over your use of the currency.
Loss of Privacy
In a cashless society there is the loss of privacy. Digital money offers the convenience of allowing you to track and budget your money online. Such a system, however, also leaves a permanent digital foot print of where you spent your money, accessible to just about anyone who has access to your account. (criminal hackers and government agencies). A common objection to this privacy invasion is that “if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about”.
Consumers, however, may buy perfectly legal items (e.g. a confederate or hammer and sickle communist flag or over the counter drugs like Sudafed) that may give the government reason to believe they are a potential threat or engaged in illegal activities. Indeed, your purchase history can create a profile that the government can use against you including your purchases of books deemed to be critical of the current government. Buy the “wrong” items and you may find yourself on a government “list”.
Think if you buy only legal items in a cashless society, you have nothing to worry about? Think again.
Loss of Understanding Value & Responsibility
Without cash, consumers are no longer market participants that evaluate tangible value based on how much cash they have in their wallets, but mindless spenders without a sense of the value of the items they are purchasing or a sense of understanding of their actual cost after incurring bank and credit card interest fees. (still sky high even after years of zero interest rate policies across the globe).
In a society that uses cash, acts like making change and giving tips provide market participants with a tangible sense of economic value. Children that grow up saving money in piggy banks and counting their pennies, nickels and dimes learn the value of money through the tactile experience of handling money – even if today’s coins have been debased and since 1965, are no longer minted of silver.
A cashless society turns money and value into digital abstractions as defined and controlled by the banks and central planners.”(1)
The Cashless Society List
Following are a list of some of the countries that are moving to a cashless economic system. This list is by no means comprehensive since there are more and more countries taking steps to eliminate the use of cash. Some of the information may also be dated since there has been additional progression towards the cashless goals of those listed below. So please investigate the current status in your country to find out how far the cashless agenda has proceeded.
“AUSTRALIA – Late last year  the Westpac banking group issued a “Cash Free Report” touting the highly self-serving finding that “Over half (53 per cent) of payments currently made in Australia are cashless” (using Westpac online banking services like their cardless ATMs, no doubt). The report goes on to predict that Australia will be cash free by 2022. Meanwhile, the government is readying a cashless welfare system that will allow the government to control what the money is spent on. What could possibly go wrong?
BELGIUM – In 2014 the Belgian government passed new restrictions on cash payments: cash can no longer be used to pay for real estate, and there is a 3000 euro limit on cash payments for other assets (unless purchase second hand).
CANADA –In 2007 the Canadian government stopped allowing payment of taxes in cash at government service centers. In 2010 Passport Canada followed suit. In 2011 56% of Canadians polled said they were happy to live in a bankster-controlled cashless society so the country killed the penny in 2012 and the Royal Canadian Mint started pimping the “MintChip” as a new form of electronic payment that will be “better than cash.” The Mint ended the program in 2014 but the Great White North is still on track to be a cashless society in the coming years.
CHINA – The People’s Bank of China, citing the need to “reduce costs, curb crimes and money laundry, facilitate transactions and boost central bank’s control on money supply and circulation” set up a research team in 2014 “to study application scenarios for digital currency and strive for an early rollout.”(10)
“DENMARK – “Denmark, is also making great strides to lessen the circulation of banknotes in the country.
Two decades ago, roughly 80 percent of Danish citizens relied on hard cash while shopping. Fast forward to today, that figure has dropped dramatically to 25 percent.
“We’re interested in getting rid of cash,” said Matas IT Director Thomas Grane. “The handling, security and everything else is expensive; so, definitely we want to push digital payments, and that’s of course why we introduced mobile payments to help this process.”
Eventually, establishments may soon have the right to reject cash- a practice that is common in Sweden. Government officials have set a 2030 deadline to completely do away with paper money.
Helping streamline the adoption of cashless practices is MobilePay. The payments app is being used by over 30 percent of the country’s population. Using the platform, locals can participate in P2P transactions, as well as pay for goods and services wirelessly.”(7)
“ECUADOR – Last year  Ecuador became the first government to launch a digital currency completely administered and controlled by a central bank. Called the Dinero Electronico, the currency can be purchased with cash, stored in electronic wallets on a phone, and can be exchanged by text message.
FRANCE – In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo attacks last year , the French government stepped up its war on cash. In March of last year, French Finance Minister Michel Sapin declared it necessary to “fight against the use of cash and anonymity in the French economy” in order to combat “low-cost terrorism.” As of September 2015 it is illegal for French citizens to make purchases exceeding 1000 euros in cash.
HONG KONG – When it launched in 1997, the Hong Kong Mass Transit Railway’s Octopus Card was just the second contactless smart card system in the world (after South Korea’s UPass). Although originally used to pay for journeys on public transit, it can now be used at convenience stores, vending machines, supermarkets, photo booths and other retail outlets. In 2004 all metered parking spaces in Hong Kong were converted to cashless meters that required Octopus Cards for payment.”(10)
INDIA – “Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that currency notes with denomination values of INR 500 (about $7.5) and INR 1000 (about $15) respectively became invalid and were discontinued from midnight of 08 November 2016. Citizens were allowed to exchange their old currency notes through the banks and post offices till 30 December. This is being considered as a major step towards curbing the nuisance of black money.
“The five hundred and thousand rupee notes hoarded by anti-national and anti-social elements will become just worthless pieces of paper,” Modi said in a televised address to the nation.
People who had old Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 bills had till Dec. 30 to deposit it to a bank or the post office. Modi said that the move will force corrupt people, including terrorists, to either deposit the large stash of cash they have to a bank — and hence declare it — or sit on it and lose all the cash.
The transition to new notes, though, has caused a major sense of panic among many. Soon after the shocking announcement, people could be seen queuing up to withdraw cash in Rs 100 bills. Most ATMs in India had been stocked with the higher denomination currency bills that are now untenable.
In place of the older Rs 500 and Rs 1,000 bills, the government will introduce an updated Rs 500 bill and a brand bill in Rs 2,000 denomination. The objective is to flush out the older bills, which the government believes have been counterfeited and used against India to fund terrorist operations.”(11)
“A cashless future is the real goal of India’s demonetization move.
“This is a public sector innovation unthought of in history. A cultural-economic revolution in the making!” exclaimed Monishankar Prasad, a New Delhi-based author and editor, about India’s demonetization initiative and subsequent drive towards developing a cashless economy.
The biggest problem with India suddenly removing 86% of its currency from circulation without having an adequate supply of new notes ready to take their place is that fact that India is more reliant on cash than almost any other country on earth. Suddenly, hundreds of millions of people were left without the means to engage economically, to buy the things they wanted and needed, and myriad businesses were left without a readily available mechanism to receive payment for their goods, to buy supplies, or pay their staff.
India’s demonetization scheme was a unilateral initiative that was planned in secret — in a back room of Prime Minister Modi’s home, in fact — by a small group of insiders tied-in with the upper echelons of India’s government. The strategy was to instantly nullify all 500 and 1,000 rupee banknotes, the most common currency denominations in the country, and then eventually replace them with newly designed, more secure 500 and 2,000 rupee notes. This endeavor instantaneously became policy when the prime minister announced it via a surprise television address at 10:15 PM on November 8.
One of Modi’s main brands is that of a corruption fighter, and his demonetization initiative was rushed into effect in an attempt to catch the black market off guard — which could potentially lead to a big payday for the central bank if large amounts of illicit cash wasn’t redeemed. That plan flopped, as almost all of the recalled notes were officially accounted for one way or another.
But this surprise demonetization also did something else: it pushed millions of new users onto the country’s digital economic grid by virtual fiat. Not even the banks were notified in advance of Modi’s plan, and, even with strict exchange limits that prohibited people from exchanging over $60 worth of rupees at a time, they simply didn’t have enough of the newly designed banknotes on-hand to distribute to the masses looking to redeem their canceled notes. Rather than being a 50 day transition, as the Indian government projected, it is looking as if it will take four months to a year before the country’s currency supply is restored.
In point, the people of India were left in limbo as the government cancelled the bulk of their currency without providing them with the means to obtain the newly printed notes to replace it. On the surface, this seems as if it was a matter of gross negligence, but there may have been more to it than that. As the demonetization process continues, Modi’s rhetoric is less about fighting corruption and more about transitioning India to a cashless economy.
Up until this campaign, India was an incredibly cash-centric economy. Cash accounted for upwards of 95% of all transactions, 90% of vendors didn’t have card readers or the means of accepting electronic payments, 85% of workers were paid in cash, and almost half of the population didn’t even have bank accounts. Even Uber in India accepted cash — the only country in the world where this option is available — and “Cash on Delivery” was the preferred choice of 70% of all online shoppers.
By temporarily turning off the engines which drove the cash economy, India hoped that more people could be brought into the fold by using track-able — and taxable — digital financing vehicles, like debit cards and e-wallets.
But even if India were to accomplish this rather incredible and, in the short-term at least, improbably feat, there is still a marked downside, as Prasad exhibits: “The long term impact will be a paradigm shift to the digital fintech platforms. It will be a surveillance, panopticon-led society of a new breed.”
There are also marked class issues which are built into India’s cashless transition. India is a country that has one foot in the future and the other in the stone age — almost literally. This is a country that has one of the most vibrant and innovative high-tech ecosystems in the world along with hundreds of millions of people living in villages who are comfortable with technology that’s hardly more sophisticated than a bullock cart and a plow. Only 17% of the India’s population currently has access to a smartphone.
“The poor were taken totally off-guard and the banking infrastructure in the hinterland is rather limited,” Prasad said. “The poor do not have the access to structural and cultural resources to adapt to shock doctrine economics. The tech class has poor exposure to critical social theory in order to understand the impact on the ground. There is an empathy deficit.”
Whether intentionally at the outset of demonetization or not, this paradigm shift was initiated by the Modi government this November. While some of the boom in additional usage of electronic payment systems may fizzle out as cash is restored to India’s economy — and people go back to paying for things with bills and coins and storing gluts of cash in their mattresses as they’ve always had — a reasonable portion of this transition may stick in the form of new long-term users.”(12)
“ISRAEL – A special committee headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chief of staff, Harel Locker, has recommended a three-phase plan to all but do away with cash transactions in Israel.
The committee estimated that the black market represents over 20 percent of Israel’s GDP, and cash is the facilitating factor. Cash enables tax evasion, money laundering and even financing terrorism.
What the committee would like to see happen, pending government approval, is greater restriction on the use of cash, limiting the use of checks as a means of payment and exchange for cash, and promotion of the use of electronic (and therefore verifiable) means of payment.
The following guidelines were set out by the committee for the short-term:
- Limit business transactions done in cash or by check to NIS 7,500 ($2,150) immediately, and reduce that further to NIS 5,000 ($1,433) one year from the date of legislation;
- Limit private transactions done in cash or by check to NIS 15,000 ($4,300);
- Any violation of these limits would be a criminal offense warranting a stiff fine.
In conjunction with these new restrictions, Israeli banks would be required to provide all account holders with debit cards to further promote electronic payments.
The committee found that Israelis are already prone to choose electronic payments methods, and so hopes the shift to a cashless society would be a good fit for the Israeli economy.”(8)
ITALY – “In Italy, all very large cash transactions have been banned. Previously, the limit for using cash in a transaction had been reduced to the equivalent of just a few thousand dollars.”(5)
In 2011 newly appointed Italian Prime Minister Mario Monti made cash payments over 1000 euro illegal.
And there are dozens of other countries whose banksters and (bankster-controlled) governments have openly lusted after a world of completely trackable, completely bank-controlled transactions.
“KENYA – Last year  the Kenyan government awarded a contract to MasterCard to administer a smart card that can be used to pay for government services and receive welfare payments. Anne Waiguru of the Ministry of Devolution and Planning explained: “Uwezo Fund beneficiaries, Youth and Women Funds disbursements, National Youth Service, Social welfare government cash transfers to families, government food subsidies, hunger safety net cash transfers and cash transfers to orphaned children will be disbursed through the cards,” neglecting to add that the card also gives MasterCard access to the biometric details of 170 million potential customers.
MEXICO – In 2013 the Mexican government banned cash payments of more than 500,000 pesos for real estate and more than 200,000 pesos for cars, jewelry or lottery tickets.
NETHERLANDS – In 2013 the mayors of Almere, Rotterdam and Maastricht engaged in a publicity stunt to promote a campaign encouraging the public to abandon cash. They spent a week without spending any cash, relying solely on debit cards for purchases. The campaign is part of a long term trend away from cash and toward debit payments in many supermakets and other businesses around the country.
NORWAY – Late last week [Dec 2015] Trond Bentestuen, a senior executive at Norway’s largest bank, complained to the VG Newspaper that the Norwegian central bank “can only account for 40 percent” of the Norwegian kroner in circulation, meaning “that 60 percent of money usage is outside of any control.” There’s only one conclusion, according to Bentestuen: “There are so many dangers and disadvantages associated with cash, we have concluded that it should be phased out.” Don’t worry, though, the nation’s Finance Ministry says it has “no plans to change the law in this area”…for now.
PHILIPPINES – In the Philippines, the government has launched an “E-Peso” project with the explicit aim of “transforming communities into cashless societies.” Touted as “a digital/virtual currency based on the Philippine Peso” its main selling point (according to the E-Peso’s own website) is that: “Since E-Peso transactions are completely digital, everything will automatically be recorded onto the customer’s account activity log.” The initiative is funded by infamous CIA front USAID, which “has awarded a US$25-million, five-year project to a company called Chemonics to support the Philippine government in the promotion and adoption of e-payments in the Philippines.”
SAUDI ARABIA – A MasterCard report on “The Cashless Journey” noted that by increasing the share of debit card transactions in the economy between 2006 and 2011, Saudi Arabia was moving at a faster than average pace toward a cashless society. Commenting on the report, Khalid Hariry of MasterCard noted: “Saudi Arabia is indeed moving at a better than average pace on its cashless journey, which has been significantly spurred along by government leadership. Regulation mandating wages assignment of employees’ to bank accounts has vastly increased access to electronic payment methods for the Saudi population over a short period of time. These changes, coming alongside initiatives to spur acceptance, and a push to migrate payments made during the Hajj and Umrah pilgrimages, can be expected to shift substantial share of consumer payments away from cash in the coming years.”
SPAIN – Citing budgetary austerity and the need to clamp down on tax fraud the Spanish government banned cash payments of more than 2,500 euros in 2012.”(10)
SWEDEN – “Sweden is the place where, if you use too much cash, banks call the police because they think you might be a terrorist or a criminal. Swedish banks have started removing cash ATMs from rural areas, annoying old people and farmers. Credit Suisse says the rule of thumb in Scandinavia is: “If you have to pay in cash, something is wrong.”
Two trends are converging on Sweden at the same time:
- Sweden is using less and less cash.
- Sweden is an environment of negative interest rates.
And that means many Swedes have no way to “hide” their money.
So Sweden may become the first country whose citizens may have to accept negative interest rates (probably in the form of higher bank charges or fees) or be forced to spend their money to “save” it from those rates.”(9)
“In Sweden, only about 3 percent of all transactions still involve cash. The following comes from a recent Washington Post article….
In most Swedish cities, public buses don’t accept cash; tickets are prepaid or purchased with a cell phone text message. A small but growing number of businesses only take cards, and some bank offices — which make money on electronic transactions — have stopped handling cash altogether.
“There are towns where it isn’t at all possible anymore to enter a bank and use cash,” complains Curt Persson, chairman of Sweden’s National Pensioners’ Organization.”(5)
“Despite the irony that Sweden is actually the birthplace of the very first banknote circa 1661, the modern government has rapidly been moving to abandon cash altogether. Citing the tried-and-true justification of a crackdown on organized crime and terrorism, Sweden is taking advantage of its highly tech-literate population to become the very first nation to render their bank note obsolete.
Researchers at Stockholm’s KTH Royal Institute of Technology are confident that the Swedish population has almost completely embraced Swish – a digital person-to-person, real-time payment system loosely similar to PayPal – to such a degree that a cashless society in now inevitable as banknotes in circulation continue a steep decline.”(6)
UKRAINE – “Many Ukrainians think it is much safer to keep their money under the mattress than in the bank. This point is proven by Ukraine’s richest: The country’s top officials and lawmakers, many of them millionaires, tend to keep their vast savings in cash, according to their recently filed electronic declarations of assets.
But even with distrust in the banking sector lingering, the number of cashless operations is slowly increasing in Ukraine, Unian reported.
In the first nine months of 2016 Ukrainians have made in total 1,272 million cashless payments worth Hr 398 billion ($15.13 billion)–more than for the whole year of 2015, according to the National Bank. Today, 35.8% of all the payments in Ukraine are cashless, up from just 8% in 2011.
But while the number of cashless payments is slowly increasing, this slow growth shouldn’t mislead one into thinking that Ukraine is moving to cashless economy at any great pace.
According to the Swedish National Bank, Riksbank, in 2014, Ukraine was among those countries in the world with the greatest fondness for cash: The amount of cash circulating in the economy equaled 18.1% of the country’s gross domestic product. In comparison, in Poland the same indicator was 7.5%, in Canada, 3.8%, and in Sweden, 2.2%.”(13)
THE UNITED STATES – To a large degree, the transition to a cashless society is being done voluntarily. Today, only 7 percent of all transactions in the United States are done with cash, and most of those transactions involve very small amounts of money.
Just think about it for a moment. Where do you still use cash these days? If you buy a burger or if you purchase something at a flea market you might still use cash, but for any mid-size or large transaction the vast majority of people out there will use another form of payment.
“URUGUAY – Under the “Financial Inclusion Law” which took effect in May 2015 the Uruguayan government has banned all cash payments over $5,000, thus requiring all property and vehicle purchases to go through the banking system. This is part of a wave of such legislation throughout Latin America hailed as a way of “giving the people what they need” (i.e. access to banking) even when (as the very same report notes) “those on the edges of the financial system are distrustful of banks” especially in Uruguay.
UK – In 2014 cashless payments surpassed cash payments for the first time in the UK, with research (from cashless payment provider Kalixo Pro) suggesting that the average Brit only carries £17.79 in cash at any time and 1 in 4 will walk away from if a business doesn’t accept card payment. London buses went cashless in 2014.”(10)
How To Resist Conditioning For The Cashless Society
“Most of the arguments for a cashless society sound sensible and logical, especially on first glance. People who argue against the ‘progress’ and ‘sense’ of this development have been accused of being backward, suspicious, or worse. In light of this, it is going to take considerable courage and character to refuse to conform to the inevitable process unfolding before our eyes. It is also going to take wisdom and discernment in order to disentangle the issues.
Following are five ways in which people are being heavily conditioned to accept the cashless society, and it concludes with what we need to do in order to take a stand against this:
It follows that if we argue against the cashless society we become a “foe” of the status quo, having aligned ourselves with criminals; or worse still, terrorists. This is not an exaggeration, as the following headline from The Guardian reveals: “Crime, terrorism and tax evasion – why banks are waging war on cash.”
Rhetoric used to drum up support for the cashless society also echoes the scaremongering and propaganda used to galvanise public support for military action. Another newspaper headline about Sweden, the global forerunner of the cashless society, exclaims: “Sweden wants to kill cash within 5 years, and it’s getting really close.”
Can the public really be convinced that changing the “form” that money takes will bring an end to greed? Obviously illegal activity will continue, even if much of it has to do with devising ways to work around a cashless society. But a bigger threat looms in the form of criminal use of the power that banks and governments will receive if they gain a total monopoly on all of our transactions. The world will be forced to accept whatever terms, charges or exchange rates the system wishes to implement, since there will be no way to withdraw our wealth and hide it in a mattress like we used to be able to do in the “good old days”.
The strategy being used by cashless proponents (like Guillermo de la Dehesa) is to allow no room for middle ground. We are being instructed to make a clear decision about whose side we are on. According to their terms, if we continue to use paper money we are probably doing something bad: if we choose to go cashless, only then will we have a chance of being accepted as one of the “good guys.”
In addition to military and romantic rhetoric, competitive jargon has been used to give the impression that the end of cash is a goal toward which we are all striving. Headlines commonly refer to “the race to become the first cashless society.” By making it a “race” to be the first person, business, or country to achieve the various steps toward a cashless society, the public is being conditioned to think that “winning” this race is necessarily a good thing, in every way. No thought is given to whether or not the race is what everyone wants, or indeed whether the course may end at the top of a cliff.
Clearly, the trumpet has sounded for all nations to jump aboard the transition to a cashless economy as quickly as possible – like a black hole sucking everyone into alignment and submission. Between the lines of each type of rhetoric being formulated to usher in the cashless society is a clear warning: if you wish to keep your wealth, lifestyle and reputation you must conform.
The media tends to ignore arguments and concerns that people have about the impending cashless society until or unless they can come up with a strong argument to challenge the concern. The benefits are touted in an effort to convince us that there is no reason at all to be concerned about un-named dangers.
The number of reasons being given in favour of a cashless society feel weighty. Arguments have included such things as simplifying banking, with no more need to mess around counting or looking for loose change;wiping out the drug trade and crippling terrorism; improving the efficiency of immigration and law enforcement; ending bribes; hindering tax evasion; and creating a safer, more “transparent society”, where everything is accounted for and “above board.”
The younger generation – future voters and bread-winners – are being heavily primed.
Clearly a lot of thought is being put into convincing us that every aspect of the cashless society is being considered, and that all the necessary “solutions” are being found. Arguments are, of course, consistently chosen for the express purpose of pushing through the cashless society. We are being conditioned to believe that this is in our best interests – the dawning of a “brave new world” of convenience, efficiency and transparency.
While there are benefits to going cashless, the pay-off is definitely not a ‘profitable’ one. We are being encouraged to sign away our freedoms and to exercise blind faith in policy-makers and institutions that will bail out banks at the drop of a hat, while watching people’s pensions disappear down the plug hole.
Contrary to what the public is being led to believe, the real “winners” of the war on cash are not the vast majority of the public. The winners are those individuals who stand to significantly profit from it – mainly the banking cartels and those who support their policies.
Mastercard, one of the main financial institutions propelling the cashless society, commissioned a billboard advertising their lead debit brand, Maestro, emblazoned with the slogan: “Cash is so last millennium!” Between the lines, users of cash were being labelled as archaic and behind the times.
Humans are suggestible: if you keep repeating a message with enough volume and frequency, the chances of someone giving it credence increases.
Advertising experts know that if you repeat a message over and over, it becomes embedded in peoples’ consciousness. Banks, retailers, politicians, and other agencies who will benefit from the cashless society, have the funds and motivation to use media outlets and public spaces to sell their products and proclaim their views. This is where the rhetoric and reasoning for the cashless society is likely to be repetitively preached, wearing people down in a war of attrition.
Billions of dollars worth of advertising is focusing only on the benefits, which are further enhanced through glossy looks, sex appeal, and other positive images. Consequently, people’s reality can become sufficiently blurred for us to all cave in. Repetitive advertising can easily deceive and condition people to buy something, or believe something, that they may otherwise not have.
New articles (and marketing campaigns) about the impending cashless society are being commissioned on a daily basis. We have touched on how repetitive slogans, like “the war on cash”, and “the race to become cashless” are used. Additionally, statistics, facts, polls and dates are repeated. Over and over we have reports drummed into us that another country is “…aiming to go cashless by 2023″; or that: “…A new study has revealed that a third of Brits believe cash will be ‘extinct’ within the next 15 years…” and so on.
These consistent plugs for the cashless society reinforce in people’s minds the idea that there is no way of escaping it; you may as well just bow down and accept it instead.
Peter McNamara, chief executive of NoteMachine, which runs 9,000 ATM’s across Britain and Germany said: “There is a real danger that the UK is being railroaded towards a cashless society, with the agenda driven hard by technology giants and card issuers who are keen to capitalize on the digital age – yet the evidence to support this suggests hype rather than reality.”
Spin created to exaggerate the weaknesses of cash, while exaggerating the benefits of cashless alternatives, is conditioning people to think differently in order to get them to act differently. But we are being conditioned to accept the cashless society even more deeply through circumstances themselves: The element of choice is quickly being eroded away.
In countries like Denmark thousands of ATM machines have been physically removed in recent years, making it more difficult for people to obtain cash there.
In Ireland – a nation among the biggest users of cash and cheques in Europe – a charge on all ATM transactions has been introduced in an attempt to encourage people to go cashless.
Even 10 years ago it would have been almost unheard of for cash payment of goods and services to be declined. However, these days, in various sectors of retail and commerce (especially the Internet), the use of cash is becoming increasingly more difficult, if not impossible.
In a growing number of cities it is no longer possible to pay for certain forms of public transport using cash. Stockholm, for example, has outlawed cash for travel on its Metro, and in Central London customers are no longer permitted to pay bus drivers using cash. Alternative means of payment (e.g. contactless payment) are required for public transport in many major cities. In some cases where different payment options are still available, cashless options (e.g. London’s “Oystercard” or Sydney’s “Opal card”) are incentivised by making them considerably cheaper.
It follows that the harder and more expensive it gets to use paper money and coins – as more tax is put on it, as fewer outlets allow it, and as retailers and authorities become more suspicious of it – the more people will be forced to use alternative forms of digital payment, if they wish to continue with their lifestyle.
In light of this, when we are told (for the umpteenth time) that “more and more people are choosing to go cashless?” we need to seriously question how honest a picture this is. For many people, the “choice” to go cashless is being dictated by circumstances that they have little or no control over.
Garry Duursma, the head of Market Development and Innovation for MasterCard, delivered a clear message to retailers in Australia (another leader in the race to go cashless): “As Australia marches towards a cashless future, the retail industry has increasingly sought to remove barriers to cashless transactions,” he said. “To remain relevant and competitive, it is essential for retailers of all sizes – indeed, any customer-driven business – to facilitate cashless transactions.”
Retailers are being told that unless they provide cashless options their profits will suffer. Consumers are being told that unless they go cashless they will be seen as suspicious. It is easy to see how the reality of a cashless society is being determined by profit (greed) and respectability (fear), with both playing into the other, to create an inevitable outcome.
The way the cashless society is being presented and steered has, in fact, become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The motivation comes from those with wealth and power. The resources needed to push through such a society (e.g. media, technology etc.) already exist. And a growing percentage of the public are climbing on the bandwagon of these developments in order to maintain access to employment opportunities, goods and services.
In just a matter of a few years we have seen how much of the developed world (and a growing percentage of the developing world) have been conditioned to become heavily dependent on mobile phones. People now have the option of using technology like Google wallet, Apple Pay and Android Pay, to make payments through this means. Dave Birch, Director of Innovation at Consult Hyperion, which helped TfL (Transport for London) launch contactless payments, announced: “Smartphones are the final nail in the coffin for cash.”
In a short space of time millions (if not billions) of people have transitioned from paying for goods and services with cash, to paying using Smartphones or contactless credit cards. It is easy to see how the public will come to accept the next logical “advancement” in the evolution of the monetary system – swiping a reader with an implantable RFID chip. While Smartphones can easily be lost or stolen, having an RFID credit card inside one’s hand will be more convenient and will appear to solve this security issue.”(14)
Cashless Society = Slavery
“Cashless means total control over the population:
The plan is to turn the screw on the entire population to force them into submission.
The single electronic currency within a cashless society is the foundation plan for human control.
The system has been designed to assure that money the basis is of everything. The idea is: Having or having not money dictates where you live, what you eat, whether you eat, where you work, whether you work, if you life or die, including almost every life-choice imaginable. – It means that those who control the money control the world and the wars.
The euro single currency was never an end in itself. It was merely a stalking horse to delete the individual currencies that preceded it. The euro too is due to be replaced by the global single electronic currency, and the euro crisis serves that aim.
The cashless society equals total control of the populace that will end in slavery – confirming the next stage of accomplishment before the implementation of the dictatorial New World Order.
The engineered ‘euro crisis’ is used as the ‘Problem-Reaction-Solution’ to bring thousands of banks under the direct supervision of the Rothschild-created ECB, seated in the Rothschild home town of Frankfurt/Main. Both the previous President of the ECB Jean-Claude Trichet and the current President Draghi are Rothschild Zionists. Draghi is known not to breathe unless the Rothschilds give him permission.
Nathan Meyer Rothschild told a group of bankers in 1912: “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profit, or so dependent on its favors, that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
A cashless society is sold to the naive public as the great advance of modern progress. By in reality making the one world currency effective, society enters into the final leap of world dictatorship – already outlined two centuries ago in the New World Order agenda.
Please understand that electronic currency leads directly to enslavement of the populace – away from freedom. The only one-way out left, is diversification into hard assets such as precious metals and real estate. It is important to hold your precious metal outside any country that is applying those controls.
Banks and governments seek total control of money, and this can only be achieved if they possess a monopoly on the flow of money. If a worldwide system can be implemented in which currency transactions can only take place electronically through banking institutions, the banks will then have total power over the ability of people to function economically.
The introduction of a cashless society empowers central banks greatly. A cashless society, after all, not only makes things like negative interest rates possible, it transfers absolute control of the money supply to the central bank, mostly by turning it into a universal banker that competes directly with private banks for public deposits. All digital deposits become base money. As digital accounts can more easily manipulated than cash!
This is the creation of the totalitarian control of your finances. The implication that you may have some sort of terrorist involvement is a smokescreen. If you use cash for any reason – to pay your rent, to buy a used car, or (soon) to pay for your lunch – you may trigger an investigation. You may be suspected of money laundering, tax evasion, or even terrorism. – The responsibility of proof that you are not guilty will be on you.
Totalitarian control of currency is an inevitability, and it will take place sooner rather than later. The only question is whether the reader can retain some control of his wealth. Fortunately, wealth may still be held in land and precious metals, but these are only safe if they’re held outside a country that seeks totalitarian rule over its people.”(15)